Executive Summary
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Pinterest and Nagravision. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, aligning it with the language of the patent grant and the common working language of the multinational Defendants. This ruling emphasizes that operational efficiency and internal coordination needs of large corporate defendants can override the local language preference of a claimant in UPC proceedings.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that despite the Claimant's interest in conducting proceedings in German (the local language), the need for the multinational Defendants to communicate and coordinate internally in their usual working language, English, outweighed this concern. The speed and efficiency of coordination, especially given strict UPC time limits, was deemed a decisive factor.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsShenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd. in the UPC regarding its electric toothbrush patent (EP3197316). The case centered on alleged infringement by Oclean's toothbrushes, despite previous settlement efforts. This decision underscores the effectiveness of provisional measures in swiftly addressing ongoing market infringements within the unified European patent system.
Insulet CorporationvsEOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
Hanshow Germany GmbHvsVusionGroup SA
In a decision concerning the revocation action against EP 3 883 277, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Hanshow Germany GmbH's request to withdraw its appeal. Since VusionGroup SA did not object and no final judgment had been reached, the procedure was closed. This ruling highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing parties to terminate proceedings amicably while ensuring cost recovery for the withdrawing party.
Visibly Inc.vsEasee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an infringement appeal following an out-of-court settlement between Visibly Inc. and Easee B.V. The court formally permitted the withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. Crucially, the ruling clarified the procedural implications of such a withdrawal, specifically addressing the reimbursement of court fees under R. 370.9 RoP. This case serves as an important reminder for practitioners that settlement can lead to formal closure and fee recovery within the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the protection of confidential information during patent litigation. Ericsson, the Claimant, sought an 'external eyes only' regime to ensure its proprietary data remained protected while maintaining full adversarial access. The Court granted this specialized confidentiality club, allowing restricted access to unredacted documents for authorized parties and experts from both sides. This ruling provides a clear procedural pathway for managing highly sensitive trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.